The goal of this paper is to provide a new definition of a BiblicalHebrew (BH) verbal construction, usually referred to as wayyiqtol. . .There are two types of commonly employed functional and semanticdefinitions of the formation. First, when referring to taxis3-aspect-tense-mood (TATM) properties, the gram has most frequentlybeen equaled with a past (definite past or preterite) or perfectivepast (other proposals, on the contrary, identify the gramwith a present tense and imperfective aspect^ for a general reviewof descriptions posited by temporal, aspectual, historicalcomparativeand psychological schools, as well as those offered bythe first generation of grammaticalization framework, consult footnote4 below). Other theories (especially, those developed by thesyntactical approach) have adjoined a value of sequentiality to theTATM load of the construction. Second, when emphasizing itsdiscourse pragmatic characteristics—and disregarding TATM values—theexpression has been classified as a principal form (foreground)of the narrative backbone. However, the two descriptionsare reductionist and greatly simplify the nature and substance of thewayyiqtol.

The former ignores or minimizes the fact that (as will be indicatedin section 2) the formation provides not one but a broadrange of uses and hence cannot be reduced to a single value such aspast or perfective past. Nor is it appropriate to understand suchfrequently proposed labels (i.e. past or perfective past) as überfunctionsfrom which other meanings are derivable, i.e. hardly canthe use of the formation with a future or stative present force beexplained as a realization of its past or past perfective value (cf.section on 3.1 and the discussion on a dynamic vision of synchronicgrammatical phenomena). As for the discourse-pragmatic classification(principal narrative construction), it is reductionistic in thesense that it ignores the evident semantic content of the gram aswell as the fact that the formation expresses determined temporaland aspectual meanings, entailing a failure to denote others. Thismeans that to account for the entire nature and behavior of thewayyiqtol is neither easy nor straightforward and that, in particular, itcannot be swept under simplifying reductionistic definitions, suchas a past, a perfective past or a narrative form. There furthermoreexists a third group of descriptions which, although highly valuable,are limited to a mere taxonomy (cf. e.g., Waltke & O’Connor 1990in footnote 3). They introduce a detailed—not reductionistic—account of the semantic content of the construction without, however,providing an explanation for it: they fail to account for therelation between uses of the gram and its internal consistency.4

I don’t know who is the author, nor even why I should listen to him. Since I don’t know him from Adam, what follows is not an attack on his person, rather a critique of his ideas. Because I don’t know him as a person, the only thing I can comment on are his written words.

From his words, we can tell that his native tongue is most likely a European one. The primary conjugations of European languages is tense. Some, like Russian, also have conjugated aspect. None that I know of conjugate for mood, rather mood is indicated by syntactical constructs.

According to Waltke and O’Connor (I’ve forgotten which page) Mishnaic through medieval to modern Hebrews have tense conjugation.

Between these two influences—modern western European languages and Mishnaic to modern Hebrews—western researchers assume tense and/or aspect as the basis of Biblical Hebrew conjugation.

I’ve been exposed to Japanese, and speak Cantonese—neither language conjugates their verbs at all, not for tense, nor aspect, nor mood. If any of those are important in a conversation, it is indicated by contextual clues.

Biblical Hebrew conjugates its verbs, but what those conjugations indicate is the question.

Dr. Rolf Furuli, formally active on this list, showed in his PhD dissertation that Biblical Hebrew verbs were not conjugated for tense. He left open the possibility that the conjugations were for aspect, but I didn’t recognize his definition of “aspect”.

In the back of my dictionary which I send out to several people, I have a short grammar section. In it, I describe the verbal conjugations as model. One of the moods carried by the Yiqtol is the secondary indicative mood, i.e. one that follows the primary indicative. The most common of these secondary indicatives are used in narratives of past events, usually prefixed with a waw. Hence the Wayyiqtol.

What follows is my take on the uses of the Yiqtol verbs:

• Yiqtol: in the indicative mood refers to a secondary action, often as a followup to the primary action, e.g. Exodus 6:5 and repeatedly in Proverbs 31:11–31.

• Yiqtol can be used to refer to events that happened in the past Nehemiah 9:27–8, present and future.

• The Yiqtol form is also reused to express other meanings as in indicating that ideas other than indicative mood is being used:

† Indicating intention (last phrase Ex 5:2)

† Indicating “tending towards”, “results in” referring to the conclusion of what happens in the present, found in many of the Proverbs, e.g. 13:6, 9, 11,

† the results of that preceding (last verb Pr 19:9, 21:16). In this use, it can often be translated as a future in English.

† Indicating possibility, that certain things can be done Proverbs 30:28, that they may Exodus 5:1, “can be” Isaiah 1:18

† Indicating subjunctive (second phrase Exodus 5:2, Proverbs 30:10 as well as many other verses) where the translation into English would use “should” or “would”

† When a first person Yiqtol has a ה- appended to it, it has the force of “let me (us) …” do the verb’s action. It is often but not always followed by נא “please”. However, the appended ה- can be displaced by other pronominal suffixes, in which cases the following נא is needed to show the “Let me…” meaning.

† Sometimes when followed by נא it has the force of “Please let …” the action to be done Gn 44:18. But only sometimes, because other times the same construction means “Please do [the action]” Gn 24:2 so use context to indicate which use is to be employed.

† Sometimes is very close to the idea of a future tense, in that the future has not yet come, and apart from God’s prophecies, the future is not certain to come. In these cases, the Yiqtol indicates intention or expectation. However, as secondary action, it is used also for present and past actions, therefore it is not a marker for tense. (It is understandable why later grammarians would use this form for future tense when Hebrew was changed to a tense based language, given this use.)

• A very common form of the Yiqtol has a prefixed Waw, most often found in narrative of past events. As a result, many claim that this form references past events. That is not always so. This use is as mentioned above, is indicative mood referring to a secondary action, often as a followup to the primary action.